On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:24:56PM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:09 AM, Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > @@ -425,6 +424,7 @@ static int ddebug_exec_query(char *query_string)
> > >  #define MAXWORDS 9
> > >        int nwords;
> > >        char *words[MAXWORDS];
> > > +       int nfound;
> > >
> > >        nwords = ddebug_tokenize(query_string, words, MAXWORDS);
> > >        if (nwords <= 0)
> > > @@ -435,7 +435,8 @@ static int ddebug_exec_query(char *query_string)
> > >                return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > >        /* actually go and implement the change */
> > > -       ddebug_change(&query, flags, mask);
> > > +       nfound = ddebug_change(&query, flags, mask);
> > > +
> > >        return 0;
> >
> > Do these changes actually do anything, or did I miss something ?
>
> its used in a subsequent patch to decide whether or not to call
> add_to_pending.

As far as I can see your comment applies to the function
ddebug_change() while my comment applies to the function
ddebug_exec_query(). If you have a close look at the above changes you
will see that these do nothing more than adding a dead assignment.

Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/